SPEECH 


> w\ 



\\ 


OF GEORGIA, 



REPORT OF THE KANSAS INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE, 


IN THE CASE OF 


REEDER AGAINST WHITFIELD. 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 31, 1856, 




WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1856. 






























KANSAS CONTESTED ELECTION 


Mr. STEPHENS said: 

Mr. Speaker: If I were to consult my feeling's 
to-day, my strength and physical ability, I should 
not trespass upon the patience of the House. If 
I were to consider the temperature of the day, 
the heat—the sweltering heat by which we are 
almost overpowered, I should certainly say noth¬ 
ing on this occasion. If I were to look to what 
is the apparent temper and tone of this body upon 
the subject before us, as indicated by the vote 
taken two days ago, I should feel constrained to let 
this question now be decided without a word from 
me. I should despair of all hope of being able 
to change what seems to be a fixed determination 
of a majority of the House by any effort I could 
make. Day before yesterday I saw a majority 
cm this floor, in order to reach a purpose similar 
to that which they now seem bent on, vote to 
confer the most unlimited and dangerous power 
on the President of the United States. No subser¬ 
vient party in the British House of Commons ever 
yielded more power to the Crown by a vote of. 
confidence, than this House on the occasion I 
refer to, conferred upon our Chief Magistrate, 
whom they have been wont so generally to mis¬ 
trust, and unjustly to censure and upbraid. I 
allude to the vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] to the 
Army bill. It is in these words: 

“ Provided, nevertheless, That no part of the military 
force of the United States herein provided for shall be em¬ 
ployed in aid of the enforcement of the enactments of the 
alleged Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, 
recently assembled at Shawnee Mission, until Congress 
shall have enacted either that it was or was not a valid 
Legislative Assembly, chosen in conformity with the organic 
law by the people of the said Territory: Jlnd provided , 
That until Congress shall have passed on the validity of the 


said Legislative Assembly of Kansas, it shall be the duty 
of the President to use the military force in said Territory 
to preserve the peace„suppress insurrection, repel invasion, 
and protect persons and property therein, and upon the 
national highways in the State of Missouri, or elsewhere, 
from unlawful seizures and searches: Jlnd be it further 
provided , That the President is required to disarm the 
present organized militia of the Territory of Kansas, and 
recall all the United States arms therein distributed, and 
to prevent armed men from going into said Territory to 
disturb the public peace, or aid in the enforcement or resist¬ 
ance of real or pretended laws.” 

The President, by this provision, which re¬ 
ceived the sanction of a majority of this House, 
is created sole dictator over Kansas. His will, 
should the Senate concur—which I feel confident 
they will not do — would be more omnipotent 
there than that of Ctesar’s ever was over the 
Roman legions, before he crossed the Rubicon. 
Gentlemen on this side of the House, in their 
misguided zeal for what they call freedom , have 
conferred on the President a power that 1 myself 
would confer on no living man. Not only this: 
they have conferred a power in direct violation 
of the Constitution of the United- States. They 
have authorized' the President to disarm the militia 
of Kansas ! The second amendment of the Con¬ 
stitution is in these words- 

Mr. PURYIANCE. I rise to a question of 
order. Is it in order to refer to the action of this 
body on a former occasion ? 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that trie 
gentleman from Georgia is in order so far as he 
has proceeded. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman may keep 
uiet. This is not the only vote of the majority 
intend to allude to. Another one I have in 
store may disturb him even more than tills. Tha 







4 


second article of the amendment to the Constitu¬ 
tion of ti United States is as follows: 

“ A well-t egulated militia being necessary to the security 
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed.” 

That is the language of the Constitution we 
have all sworn to support. The right of the peo¬ 
ple—the militia—to keep and bear anna shall not be 
infringed, says the Constitution; but this House, 
in tiie face and teeth of the Constitution, has said 
that this rightshall be infringed!—that the militia 
of Kansas shall be disarmed, and that the wheels 
of Government shall be stopped, unless this un¬ 
constitutional behest of theirs shall be complied 
with. And now, since I have seen the majority 
of this House thus arraying themselves against 
the Constitution, and striking down this great 
bulwark of liberty., and the safeguard of the rights 
of the free white people of this country, to answer 
an unhallowed purpose of party, under a false 
idea of “ negro freedom,” am 1 not justified in say¬ 
ing that I almost despair of effecting anything by 
what I may say in behalf of right, truth, justice, 
law, order, and the Constitution? 

But, sir, that vote was given without argument 
—without full debate. On the subject now before 
us, we are not yet trammeled with the previous 
question. It is my purpose, therefore, to-day— 
notwithstanding my bodily weakness, notwith¬ 
standing the heat of the weather, and notwith¬ 
standing this unfavorable indication of the tone 
and temper of the House—to make an appeal to j 
whatever good sense and sound judgment may j 
be left in the House. I do not yet despair of the j 
cause of truth. 1 shall never despair so long as 
men will hear and lend a listening ear to reason. 

I intend to-day to argue this question on princi¬ 
ples, fixed, immutable, and as unassailable as 
those of the Constitution itself; and I approach 
the subject with the feelings of one thrice nerved 
for the argument, from the consciousness that 
his cause is bottomed upon truth and right. 

The first resolution upon your table declares 
that John W. Whitfield, the sitting Delegate 
of the Territory of Kansas, is not entitled to his 
seat, as such, on this floor. And 1 state, in the 
outset of what I shall say in opposition to this 
resolution, that the question has not changed 
in the slightest degree since the subject was here 
before. The report of the investigating commit¬ 
tee sent out to Kansas has not changed the mer¬ 
its of the case an ioia. There is no fact, no cir- 
camstance, collected in the mass of testimony 
that 1 now have before me, which changes the 
merits of the question in the smallest particular. 
How stood the case before the committee was 
instituted? The sitting Delegate presented him¬ 
self, with the certificate, under the seal of the 
Governor of the Territory, as duly elected under 
the territorial law, passed in conformity with 
the law of Congress. By virtue of the certificate 
he was sworn in, and took his seat. What was 
the objection filed to his holding his seat as such? 
An allegation on the part of the contestant, not 
that he did not have a majority of the legal voters 
at the election, but that the laic passed in the Ter- 


! ritory, under which the sitting Delegate was 
j elected, was invalid, and the election under it 
! therefore void, because of the illegality of the or¬ 
ganization of the Territorial Legislature that en¬ 
acted it. This statement covers the whole merits 
of the case, as it stood when the committee was 
raised. I said then, and I say now, that the sub¬ 
ject of the legality or illegality of the organization 
) of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas is a ques- 
| tion over which this House has no jurisdiction, 
i The proper return and election of the members of 
! that Legislature were questions to be settled and 
determined by the Governor and the Houses of 
the Legislature respectively, themselves. Ihis 
was my position then, and it is the same now. I 
shall not, at this time, repeat the argument then 
[submitted; but I throw down the gauntlet, and 
i defy any gentleman t.o answer or controvert it. 
j No man can get over it or around it, but by over¬ 
riding principles as old as Magna Charta, and 
which lie at the foundation of all American repre- 
* sentative institutions. The right of every legisla- 
[ tive body to settle and determine absolutely the eleo- 
j tion of its own members, is a necessary incident 
of its own organic functions. In England, the 
House of Lords cannot question any decision of 
the Commons touching the election of its mem¬ 
bers; neither can the Commons question a like 
decision on the part of the Lords touching the 
qualifications of a peer: neither can the King, by 
i his prerogative, interfere with the decision of 
! either House on such subjects. These principles 
; are laid down as the “ lex parliamentari,” by Sir 
j Edward Coke, sustained bv Blackstone, Mi. 
[Justice Story, Kent, Rawle, and all writers upon 
: the subject. They are incorporated in express 
j terms in the Constitution of the United States, 
j so far as the rights of both Houses of Congress 
are concerned, and in the constitutions of all our 
State governments, defining the powers of their 
legislative bodies. 

The same principle is recognized and affirmed 
by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case of Borden and others, growing out of the 
Dorr rebellion in Rhode Island in 1842. It lies 
at the foundation of all legitimate political power 
as recognized in this country. Without it there 
can be no certainty in legislation; and without its 
maintenance, nothing but disorder, confusion, 
and the wildest anarchy may be expected to en¬ 
sue. We cannot have a representative Govern¬ 
ment administered on any other principle. If you 
can inquire into the legality of the election of tire 
members of the Legislature of the Territory of 
Kansas, in the question now before us, you can 
do the same thing with regard to the States. If 
you can judge of the returns and qualifications 
j of members of that Legislative Assembly, you 
can also upon the same principle inquire into and 
judge of the legality of the elections, returns, and 
qualifications of members of the several State 
Legislatures that passed the laws under which 
all the members of this House were elected. The 
Senate may do the same in their body. Where 
is the difference? And where is this matter to 
end ? In judging the qualifications and elections 
j of the members of this House, we sit as a court; 
I and in passing judgment upon the validity of such 


% 



















5 


laws as come before us in our investigations, we 
are to be governed by the same rules and princi¬ 
ples as those of all other courts in like cases. If 
the law of Kansas under which the sitting Dele¬ 
gate was elected, has anything in it inconsistent 
with the Constitution of the United States, or 
the organic act of the Territory, you have a right 
to that extent to pronounce it invalid and void , as 
any other court would have; but questions relat¬ 
ing to the organization of the law-making power, 
courts will never inquire into, and we cannot 
properly do it either. No case can be found 
where it has ever been done, either in this coun¬ 
try or England. 

The Legislature of Kansas was elected in pur¬ 
suance of a proclamation of the Governor of the 
Territory, under the organic act passed by Con¬ 
gress. It was made the duty of the Governor to 
supervise that election, prescribe the mode and 
maimer of holding it, and to declare who was 
roperlyand legally elected. You passed another 
ill day before yesterday, for the reorganization 
of that Territory, and directing another election 
to be held in the same way. In that bill the same 
identical words are used—“ that the Governor 
shall declare who are legally elected to the Legis¬ 
lature.” Suppose that bill should become a law, 
and the Governor appointed under it should order 
a new election, and after the returns made should 
declare a majority to be duly elected, just as in 
the case of the Legislature whose laws are now 
brought in review, would this House again un- 
tertake to set aside that judgment, if it should so 
turn out that the new Legislature under the new 
act should pass any laws that the majority of this 
House might not like? Where is to be the end 
of this business ? 

Now, sir, I maintain that, if the bill which has 
just passed this House, shall become a law, and 
the Governor to be appointed under it shall order 
an election for another Legislature, and in pur¬ 
suance of his directions an election shall be held 
for members of a blouse of Representatives and 
a Council as provided, and the Governor, upon 
canvassing the returns, shall declare, as it will 
be his duty to do, who may be duly and legally 
elected, and shall give certificates accordingly, 
and the two houses of the Legislature, thus con¬ 
stituted, shall, after being duly sworn, enter upon 
their legislative duties under a law thus passed 
by Congress, and shall hear and determine, each 
House for itself, all matters pertaining to the elec¬ 
tion of its members, outside of the prima facie cer¬ 
tificate of the Governor; all such matters and 
questions so pertaining to the election of the mem¬ 
bers, and the legality of the organization of the Le¬ 
gislature so constituted, will be forever closed by 
that determination. This House would have no 
right or power to reopen the question. 

And just so in the case before us, Congress 
passed a law organizing a territorial government. 
The Governor appointed was authorized to order 
an election for members of a Legislature at such 
time, and such places, and in such manner as 
he thought proper. The returns of the elec¬ 
tion were to be made to him, and he had power 
to declare who was duly elected. The House of 
Representatives was to consist of twenty-six 


members, and the Council of thirteen. The Gov¬ 
ernor ordered an election on the 30th of March, 
1855. He divided the Territory into ten council 
districts, fourteen representative districts, and 
eighteen election districts, or voting precincts. 
He appointed the judges of election at each poll, 
and directed how their places thould be filled in 
| case those appointed should fail or refuse to act. 
The judges were all to be sworn. The rules and 
regulations for conducting the election were ex¬ 
ceedingly rigid. The election was so held. The 
returns were made to him as required; and out 
j of the twenty-six members of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, he declared seventeen were duly 
elected, and awarded certificates accordingly. Of 
thirteen Councilmen, he declared nine were duly 
elected, and awarded them certificates accord¬ 
ingly. The election of four councilmen and nine 
representatives to the House he set aside. In 
these cases he ordered new elections. This took 
place on the 22d of May, and he awarded certifi¬ 
cates to those whom he declared to be duly elected 
at that election. The members of the House and 
Council, thus declared to be duly elected by him, 
were convened by him on the 2d day of July, 
1855. Every member, of both the Council and 
House of Representatives, in that Legislature 
so convened, took his seat by virtue of the Gov¬ 
ernor’s certificate. These are admitted facts, 
j Nothing brought to light by the investigatingcom- 
mittee assails or impeaches any one of them in 
the slightest degree. Each House, after being 
thus constituted, inquired into, heard, and de¬ 
termined all questions of contested seats in their 
respective bodies, as all other legislative assem¬ 
blies do. The right to do this was inherent in 
them. On this point Judge Story says, in his 
Treatise on the Constitution of the United States, 
volume 2, page 295: 

“The only possible question on such a subject is as to 
' the body in which such a power shall be lodged. If lodged 
in any other than the legislative body itself, its independence, 
its purity, and even its existence and action, may be de¬ 
stroyed or put into imminent danger. No other body but 
j itself can have the same motives to perpetuate and preserve 
these attributes; no other body can be so perpetually vvatch- 
! ful to guard its own rights and privileges from infringement, 
to purify and vindicate its own character, and to preserve 
the rights and sustain the free choice of its constituents. 
Accordingly, the power has always been lodged in the legisla¬ 
tive body by Hie uniform practice of England and America 

Such, too, is the doctrine of Coke, of Black - 
stone, of Kent, and all writers upon the subject, as 
I showed before. Each House, therefore, of the 
Kansas Legislature was the proper tribunal to 
settle all questions pertaining to the election of 
its own members; and their decision, when made, 
was just as final in law as that of ours upon a 
similar question here. There was, however, no 
| contest over the election of but seven members of 
| the House, and two of the Council. Two mem- 
j bers of the Council, and two of the House, whose 
election was set aside at the first election, were 
declared duly elected at the second election, 
j Every one of the thirteen members of the Coun- 
! cil, therefore, except two, held his seat without 














any contest whatever; and nineteen of the twenty- 
six members of the House of Representatives 
held their seats without any contest. And after 
the Houses were thus organized in pursuance of 
law, and compliance with every legal form, they 
were recognized as a legally-constituted, law¬ 
making body by the Governor. He addressed 
them official communications as such. 

In his first message, in pointing out to them 
their duties, amongst other things the Governor 
named the duty of passing some such law as that 
under which the sitting Delegate was elected. He 
vetoed some of their acts; but not upon any 
grounds touching the legality of their election or 
organization. All questions, therefore, of that 
character, I maintain, upon the soundest principles 
of constitutional law, are now closed. It is too late 
to open them; and not one of these great, leading 
and controlling facts, in this case, is even assailed 
by any testimony taken by the investigating com¬ 
mittee. They are all confirmed and established 
by that testimony; and if the sitting Delegate shall 
be voted out upon grounds assumed in the report of 
the majority of the Committee of Elections, it will 
establish not only a novel, but a most mischievous 
precedent. It will be taking one long step towards 
that revolution which a party in this country 
seems to be aiming at. This House will but be 
doing what it is said the people of Missouri did in 
Kansas. It is said they carried the election there 
by illegal voting; and what else will you be doing 
here ? Where do you get the power or authority 
to say that Governor Reeder did not act right in 
giving certificates of election to the members of the 
Legislature whom he adjudged to be duly elected ? 
Where do you get the power, under the Consti¬ 
tution, or under the organic law, or under any 
other law, to vacate his judgment in this case ? 
The right to judge in the first instance was ex¬ 
pressly given to him. The right to judge finally 
and absolutely necessarily devolved upon the 
houses of the Legislature respectively. Congress 
reserved no supervisory power over the subject. 
Where, then, do you derive your power of annul¬ 
ling a judgment of another department of Gov¬ 
ernment having exclusive and absolute power 
and jurisdiction over the subject-matter? 

If it were true that the greatest frauds had been 
practiced in the election in Kansas—if any amount 
of illegal voting had been resorted to, and the 
people icaived their right, to inquire into it at the 
proper time and before the proper tribunal —if they 
made no complaint to the Governor when they ought 
to have done it —if they made no protest within the 
lime prescribed —if defeated candidates/cd/ed to con¬ 
test the returns of their competitors until after the 
term of office of the members of the Legislature 
expired, it is, as I maintain, now too late to file 
any such complaints before this or any other 
body. The question of the legality of the organ¬ 
ization of that Legislature, so elected, so consti¬ 
tuted, so recognized by the Governor, so dis¬ 
charging the functions of a law-making power, 
is, in my judgment, a closed question forever. 
And this is certainly the private opinion of Gov¬ 
ernor Reeder himself; for in the mass of testi¬ 
mony, collected by the committee, (pages J152, 
1153, and 1154,) I find two letters written by him 


] in this city last winter to a friend of his in Kan¬ 
sas. I will read to the House an extract of one 
of these, bearing date the 12th February, 1856. 
It was in relation to the movements in Kansas, 
in opposition to the territorial laws, in this let¬ 
ter he says: 

“ As to putting a set of laws Into operation in opposition 
to the territorial government, my opinion is confirmed in¬ 
stead of being shaken ; my predictions have all been verified 
so far, and will be in the future. We will be, so far as le¬ 
gality is concerned, in the wrong; and that is no trifling mat¬ 
ter, in so critical a state of things, and in view of such bloody 
consequences .” * * * * * “1 may speak my plain 

and private opinion to our friends in Kansas, for it is my 
duty. But to the public, as you will see by my published 
letter, I show no divided front.” 

This admission covers the whole ground. In it 
he distinctly asserts, and gives it as his own candid 
! judgment, that, “ so far as legality is concerned,’ ’ he 
j and his friends were in the wrong. The truths 
acknowledged in this admission are the same 
which I have been endeavoring to enforce. The 
whole merits of this case turn, in the report of 
the Committee of Elections, upon the simple 
question of the legality of the organization of the 
j Legislature that passed the law under which the 
I sitting Delegate was elected. That, in my judg- 
| ment, is a closed question. That, in the private 
judgment of Governor Reeder also, was a closed 
question. Out of his mouth he stands condemned 
in this movement. 

But, Mr. Speaker, strong as these positions 
are—unassailable as they are—impregnable as 
they are—1 do not intend to rest the argument 
I solely upon them. I intend to take up the report 
of the committee of investigation referred to by 
the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Washburn.] 
1 intend to examine it, and exhibit to this House 
; and the country the character of some of the facts 
| reported by them. I intend to examine some of 
! their conclusions, too. Thegentleman from Maine 
j [Mr. Washburn] says, “that all the conclu- 
I sions as to matters of fact arrived at by the said 
| special committee are clearly and incontrovertibly 
j established by the testimony in the case.” Now, 
j sir, I join issue with the gentleman from Maine, 
[Mr. Washburn.] 1 join issue with the majority 
j of the Committee of Elections. 1 join issue also 
with the investigating committee as to the matters 
of fact arrived at by them in the conclusions to 
which they come in their report; and 1 defy the 
gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Washburn,] or 
either gentleman on the investigating committee, 
or anybody else in this Elouseorout. of it, to main¬ 
tain the correctness of the conclusions as to matters 
of fact arrived at by them. I shall show that what 
has been proclaimed “ official proof,” is nothing 
but reckless assertion. The first of these conclu¬ 
sions is in these words: 

“That each election in the Territory, held under the 
! organic or alleged territorial law, has been carried by or 
| gani/.ed invasion from the Stale of Missouri, by which the 
| people of the Territory have been prevented from exercising 
! the rights secured to them by the organic law.” 

^ Now, sir, the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. 















7 


Washburn,] and tile majority of the Committee' 
of Elections, assert in their report that this con¬ 
clusion, as a matter of fact, is incontrovertibly 
established by the testimony taken. I say that 
the testimony taken establishes no such fact. I 
say that the testimony taken establishes a fact in 
direct contradiction to this statement. I say that 
the evidence abundantly and conclusively estab¬ 
lishes the fact that General Wliitficld was duly 
elected by the actual and legal resident voters 
of the Territory, at the election on the 29th of 
November, 1854. This fact appears not only 
from the testimony, but it is admitted by the com¬ 
mittee 01 investigation themselves in their own 
report. Then how can it be true, that every 
election there has been carried by an organized 
invasion from Missouri ? 

i will read from the document itself. Here on 
page 8 is what purports to be an abstract of the 
vote cast on the 29th of November, 1854, from 
which it seems that Whitfield got 2,258 votes; 
Flenniken 505; Wakefield, which (1 believe) was 
a mistake for Whitfield, 248, and 22 scattering. 
These 305 for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, were 
all the votes cast against Whitfield in the entire 
Territory. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman is entirely 
mistaken. The abstract shows that 2,258 votes 
were cast for Whitfield; 248 for Wakefield; 305 
for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, but that 1,729 
of those votes were illegal, and only 1,114 were I 
legal. Of the legal votes cast General Whitfield 
had a plurality, having received 537 legal votes. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I tell the gentleman I am 
not mistaken; and his statement, that 1,729 of the 
2,258 cast for Whitfield were illegal, is not sus¬ 
tained by proof. There is a wide difference 
between assertion and proof, and this table ex¬ 
hibits the truth of this most forcibly. The table 
states that there were 1,729 illegal votes cast; but 
where is the proof of the fact of these 1,729 votes 
being illegal ? The table is not proof. The tabic 
also states that there were only 1,114 legal votes ! 
cast at that election. Where is the proof of 
that? But suppose there were only 1,114 legal 
votes cast. Take from that number 305 votes 
cast for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, and it would 
leave Whitfield elected by a large majority; or, 
if the 248 for Wakefield were not intended for 
Whitfield, and if all the votes for that name, and 
the 327 for Flenniken, and scattering, were legal 
votes, as is assumed, but without proof, then, 
Whitfield, having 537 admitted legal votes, was 
duly elected, having received a greater number 
than any other candidate. How, then, can it be 
said that his election, in this instance, was carried 
by an organized invasion from Missouri ? 

But, sir, I call for the proof upon which this 
exhibit of legal and illegal votes is made! The 
exhibit of Whitfield’s, Wakefield’s, and Flen¬ 
niken ’s votes, and the scattering votes, is copied 
from the official return, but the addenda touching 
the legal and illegal votes, and the number of 
voters under the census taken three months after, 
have been put to it by the committee. It is in 
their statement, not in the testimony, and 1 
ask for the proof to warrant it? But, even 


|according to the gentleman’s own showing, now 
j made, after deducting from his count one thou¬ 
sand seven hundred and twenty-nine without 
; proof, Whitfield was certainly duly elected at 
that election by the legal voters of the Territory. 
Indeed, the committee of investigation say, in re¬ 
ference to this election, on page 8 of iheir report: 

| “ Of the legal votes cast. General Whitfield re¬ 
ceived a plurality.” This settles the question. 
If Whitfield got a plurality of the legal votes of 
J the Territory, of course he was duly elected. 

| Now, sir, I ask the gentleman upon my right 
[Mr. Washburn] to tell me, and this House, 
and the country, how he and a majority of the 
i committee of elections can say that it is estab- 
; lished by “ incontrovertible proof ” that “ each elec- 
' lion in the Territory, held under the organic or 
alleged territorial law, has been carried by an 
i organized invasion from the State of Missouri?” 

| &c. This matter of fact, arrived at by the special 
j committee, “ as clearly and incontrovertibly es- 
| tablished by the testimony,” cannot stand a mo- 
' merit’s handling. It falls at the first blow. It is 
' the first conclusion arrived at by the committee 
i of investigation, and incorporated in the report 
j of the Committee of Elections, as the foundation, 

| the very corner-stone of the fabric of their report 
; in this case. This corner-stone, sir, I knock from 
j under the fabric, and the whole superstructure 
j must fall with it, if there be nothing more solid or 

I firm for it to rest upon. 

But, sir, 1 do not intend to stop here. Tin's 
conclusion of the committee is but a sample of 
all the rest. I have read the whole of this docu¬ 
ment of one thousand two hundred and six pages, 

! and I assert that there is not a single one of the 
! conclusions of the committee arrived at as mat- 
i ters of fact, which is sustained by the testimony, 

! massive, voluminous, and contradictory as it is. 

II repeat, however, here again, that there is not a 
| fact or statement contained in it, by the most 

prejudiced, one-sided witness sworn, which goes 

i I to assail or impeach in the slightest degree the 
great leading facts upon which the merits of this 
case rest. "These are the elections held in pur¬ 
suance of tire Governor’s proclamation under the 
organic law—his judgment upon the returns of 
the election of the members—the large majority 
J of both branches of tire Legislature holding their 
| seats during their whole term under the certifi¬ 
cates of the Governor, without a word of com- 
j plaint from him or anybody else—that he, as 
; Governor, recognized them as a legislative body 
—that he did not question the legality of their 
! organization. The testimony of Governor Reeder 
1 himself was taken, and none of these facts are 
! denied by him. No word of complaint was ever 
| heard about the legality of the organization of the 
! Legislature, or about an invasion from Missouri, 
for several long months after the election; nor 
until after he was turned out of office. During 
all tlvis time, before he was removed by the Pres¬ 
ident, the only cry heard from him, as the senti¬ 
nel upon the watchtower of the rights of the 
people of Kansas, was, “All’s well!” 

But, sir, I will proceed. I intend to take up 
this mass of testimony, and sift it a little further, 















8 


to see how far it warrants the conclusions of the 
committee touching the elections of the members 
of the Legislature on the 30th of March, 1855. The 
testimony is all we have anything to do with. 
The conclusions of the committee are nothing. 
They were not authorized to give us any of their 
conclusions; and I have shown you what their 
conclusions are worth, taking one as a sample. 
To collect and report the facts was all they had 
to do. Then, sir, what fact is sworn to by a 
single witness, upon which the election, in a 
single district, held on the 30th of March, could 
be legally set aside if we were now sitting in judg¬ 
ment upon it? The greater part of this testimony, 
taken with the view to impeach the election of 
30th of March, is nothing butlq'hg-winded stories, 
as pointless as they are evidently prejudiced, 
founded in many instances upon bare hearsay, and 
altogether establishing nothing. The statements 
of most of the witnesses are all on the same line, 
speaking of an invasion, companies of men coming 
over from Missouri in hundreds, in wagons, 
armed with guns, pistols, knives, &c., but not one 
of them swears that a single man in the Territory, at 
a single election precinct , was prevented from voting 
by the use of these arms, or any other violence. 
The testimony of all the witnesses sworn does 
not establish the fact, that one hundred known 
residents of Missouri voted in the whole Terri¬ 
tory, or that the result at a single poll would have 
been different if all the votes proven to be illegal 
be rejected in the count. There were but three 
or four fights throughout the Territory on the 
day of the election, and not one of these about 
voting. All this general vague rumor and state¬ 
ment, therefore, about an invasion from Missouri, 
and the election having been carried by fraud, 
force, and violence, I shall pass over. To set 
aside an election upon the grounds of illegal voting, 
the names of the voters must be stated, and the 
illegality of the votes proved. There is nothing 
of this kind in this testimony. Nor is the bare 
fact of illegal voting at an election sufficient to set 
it aside. If this were so, there are very few of 
us entitled to seats upon this floor, 1 suspect. To 
set aside an election on such grounds, it must be 
shown that the result would be different by a 
rejection of the illegal votes. 

I wish, however, to call the attention of the 
House and the country to some real, substantial 
facts collected by the committee, of much weigh¬ 
tier import than these loose sayings of one-sided 
and swift witnesses. Amongst these facts of sub¬ 
stantial character is a copy of the census taken 
in February, 1855, which is to be found com¬ 
mencing on page 72 of the committee’s report. 
This census gives the name of each resident legal 
voter in the Territory, thirty days before the 
March election. It also gives the State from 
which the settler migrated. The committee do 
not seem to have given much attention to the im¬ 
portant, facts disclosed by this official document. 
They have made no analysis of these facts. I 
have. I have counted every name on the census 
roll, and noted the section of country from which 
the settler migrated, and I find that of those who 
were registered as legal voters of the Territory 


in February, a month before the election, 1,670 
were from the southern States, and only 1,018 
from the entire North! There were 217 from 
other countries. That makes the 2,905 resident 
legal voters in the Territory, a month before the 
election. I have compiled a table setting forth the 
|j number of settlers from the North, and settlers 
; i from the South, as given in the census report, for 
1 1 each district in the Territory. Here it is: 



Settlers from 

Settlers from 


the North. 

the South. 


.280 

88 


.. 67 

132 


. 49 

37 


.24 

23 


.129 

295 


. 83 

)55 


. 32 

21 

Eighth district. 

. 12 

26 

Vintli < list rid.. 

. 27 

10 


. 29 

27 

Eleventh district. 


26 

Twelfth district. 


49 

Thirteenth district.. 

.22 

55 

Fourteenth district. 


286 



206 

192 

Sixteenth district. 


Seventeenth district. 


40 


1,018 

1,670 


In the first election district, there were 280 legal 
voters, emigrants from the northern States, and 
88 from the southern. That is the Lawrence dis¬ 
trict. In the second district, there were 07 from 
the North, and 132 from the South. In the third 
district, there were 49 from the North, and 37 
from the South. In the fourth district, there were 
24 from the North, and 23 from the South. In 
the fifth district, there were 129 from the North, 
and 295 from the South. In the sixth, there were 
83 from the North, and 155 from the South. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Will my friend read again 
the numbers from the fifth district? 

Mr. STEPHENS. In the fifth district, there 
were 129 from the North, and 295 from the South. 
The fifth district had an overwhelming majority 
of residents from the South, and that is the only 
district, I believe, in which the committee hare 
taken the testimony of witnesses to prove that 
the Abolitionists were in a majority on the day 
of election. 

Now, sir, from these facts — facts of record, 
and indisputable, I deduce an argument which, 
to my mind, is much more incontrovertible and 
irresistible than any inference the majority of the 
committee may draw from the vague sayings of 
witnesses, about a multitude of strangers being 
at the polls in wagons, &c. This inference, 
which I draw from these facts, is, that there was 
a decided majority of anti-Free-Soilers in the 
Territory, and in a large majority of the districts, 
in the month of February, if there had been no 
immigration after that time. But the evidence 
is abundant and conclusive that there was a large 
immigration of legal voters from the South after 







































the census was taken, and before the election, 
much larger than at any other time. (A. B. 
Wade, page 159, and others.) One witness, 
Mr. Banks, on page 164, swears, that “ betwixt 
two and three hundred settlers moved into the 
district (the first) in which he lived, which was 
after the census was taken, and before the elec¬ 
tion.” His testimony related to only part of the 
district, where he was acquainted. Another 
witness swears that, to the best of his knowledge 
and belief, there were four hundred actual resi¬ 
dents and legal voters of the pro-slavery party 
in this first district on the day of election, (page 
1159.) The testimony shows that, in most of 
the districts, there was a large immigration of 
actual residents, legal voters from the South, 
after the census was taken, and before the day 
of election. It shows, further, that the immigra¬ 
tion during that time was much larger from the 
South than the North. But the facts disclosed 
by the census show that there was a majority of 
six hundred and fifty-two of legal voters from 
the South over those from the North, in Febru¬ 
ary. Now, sir, with these facts before us, I call 
the special attention of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sherman] to the following statement in his 
report, on page 34: 

“If the election had been confined to the actual settlers, 
undeterred by the presence of non-residents, or the knowl¬ 
edge that they would be present in numbers sufficient to 
outvote them, the testimony indicates that the council 
would have been composed of seven in favor of making 
Kansas a free State, elected from the first, second, third, 
fourth, and sixth council districts. The result in the eighth 
and tenth, electing three members, would have been doubt¬ 
ful ; and the fifth, seventh, and ninth, would have elected 
three pro-slavery members. 

“ Under like circumstances the House of Representatives 
would have been composed of fourteen members in favor 
of making Kansas a free State, elected from the second, 
third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth repre¬ 
sentative districts. 

“The result in the twelfth and fourteenth representative 
districts, electing five members, would have been doubtful; 
and the first, sixth, eleventh, and fifteenth districts would 
have elected seven pro-slavery members. 

“ By the election as conducted, the pro-slavery candi¬ 
dates in every district but the eighth representative district 
received a majority of the votes. M 

In this statement the committee say that the 
testimony indicates that, if the election had been 
confined to the actual settlers, the council would 
have been composed of seven in favor of making 
Kansas a free State, elected from the first, second, 
third, fourth, and sixth council districts. 

Now, sir, I join issue with the gentleman and 
the committee on this point. The census, which 
the committee seem not to have consulted, is the 
best testimony on it. Lotus then see what indi¬ 
cations it affords. The first council district con¬ 
sisted of the first, fourth, and seventeenth election 
districts. In these, according to the census, the 
legal voters, emigrants from the North, accord¬ 


ing to the census, was 314, from the South 15L, 
making the number of legal resident voters in 
that council district 465, in February, without 
taking any count of immigration afterwards; but 
the evidence shows that many of the residents 
j coming from the North, and even some of the 
acknowledged free-State men, voted for those 
called pro-slavery candidates, because they did 
not like the candidates put up by their party. 
They were too ultra in their abolitionism, (page 
160.) The testimony shows, also, that the whole 
i number of votes cast for the Free-Soil candidates 
in that council district, was but 254, (page 31.) 

| This would give 43 majority for them, if the 254 
! cast for them were all Legal votes. But the testi- 
! mony of Mr. Ladd, Governor Reeder’s own wit¬ 
ness, who was a candidate on that ticket for 
councilman, establishes the fact that at least fifty 
of these votes were illegal, cast by emigrants from 
New England, just arrived—some of them forty- 
eight hours before the election. This will be seen 
on page 118 of this huge volume. His language 
is as follows: 

“I know some of those who had recently arrived voted ; 

I can only approximate theirnumbers—I should think there 
were from fifty to sixty. I think there were some who ar¬ 
rived within forty-eight hours ; I cannot say as to whether 
they made settlements in the Territory at that time.” 

If, then, these fifty or sixty acknowledged ille¬ 
gal votes be deducted from those east for the Abo- 
i lition ticket, it would leave a majority for the 
candidates on the other side, of the actual res¬ 
idents in February , even in Lawrence, the great 
rendezvous of New England emigrants, and with¬ 
out any reference to the emigration from the South 
after the census was taken. There is no evidence, 
by any witness sworn, that any man, even in 
Lawrence, was prevented from voting by force, 
violence, or intimidation. Some witnesses swear 
that they did not vote because of the crowd; but 
not one swears that he could not have voted if 
he had wanted to, in consequence of any violence, 
force, or threat; and there was no crowd about 
j the polls in the afterpart of the day. Therefore, 
in this first district, the testimony in connection 
with the census does not indicate that, if the 
election had been left to the actual residents alone, 

I the Free-Soil ticket would have been elected. 
This, however, was one of the elections set aside 
by the Governor, and another was held there ok 
the 22d of May. 

But, sir, how is it in the other council districts 
mentioned by the committee ? I have a paper 
before me which I have compiled, exhibiting the 
organization of all of the council districts, witk 
the number of settlers in each from the Nortk 
and South, according to the census as far as ean 
be ascertained. The seventh, eighth, ninth, and 
tenth council districts were formed by dividing 
the districts in which the census was taken, ia 
such a way that the exact number of settler* 
front each section cannot be accurately arrived at 
in them; but it is apparent, from the census re¬ 
turns, that they could not have been divided so as 
not to have had a large majority of settlers from 
the South in each. Here is the exhibit: 
















10 


COUNCIL DISTRICTS. 


Number of 
Council District. 


Election 

Districts. 


1st, composed of 

3d « “ 

3d « ** 

4th « « 

5th « “ 

6th “ “ 


( 1st 
I V 4th 
( 17 til 


2d 


7 th 


8th 


9th 


10th 


5th 

Ctli 


r 9th 
} 10th 
] 11 !h 
{ 12th 


1 

I :j a 


•j r" 

1,5 ~'5 I 

l ~'=2 I 

IS J 


•S’?- 
30 ^ 

^!l 

wfS v 

?. I E. 
1a* 


f S 1 

I | 
1 


— o 
£ 


III 


280 

24 

10 


314 


67 


49 

32 

12 


93 


129 


83 


27 

29 

50 


106 


«. « . 
c - 1 3 

~ = 3 

« 0.5 
U2 A 


88 

23 

40 


151 


132 


37 

21 

26 


84 


295 


155 


10 

27 

28 
49 


114 


© 52 

G?*3 _r^ 
c:i 

X 


uf > o 


O 3 

5? o 
O 




f II 

! 2 £ 

GJ «-» 
t£— =5 
•3 ^ o 


1 J 9*5 

I tb^ 13 
*3 


no witness states any fact to the contrary; but 
many confirm this indication. The eighth and 
tenth districts, they say, would have been doubt¬ 
ful, while the census shows a large majority of 
the settlers in those districts were emigrants from 
the South. ' 

In reply to what is said in the extract read from 
the report touching the clmracter of the House 
1 have also made an exhibit from which it will be 
seen upon what sort of foundation that statement 
rests. 

REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS. 


N umber of 
Representative 
districts. 


I have already shown what the testimony indi-' 
crates in the first council district. Then ho'w is it j 
in the second ? The census shows that there were j 
6T resident legal votes in it from the North, and ! 
132 from the South. The evidence of witnesses j 
shows that this majority from the South was j 
largely increased by actual residents before the ! 
election, (page 1157.) In the third council district l 
the census showed a majority of 9 only from the 
North. The evidence of witnesses shows that 
this majority was overcome before the election 
by actual settlers from the South. The fourth 
(thows only 129 from the North, against 295 
from the South. The sixth district shows a ma¬ 
jority of 8 from the South. In the districts men- , 
tinned by the committee, the census returns, by i 
themselves, clearly indicate that but two of them 
ha^. a majority of settlers from the North, while 


1st composed of 

2d “ “ 

j 3d “ “ 

| 4th “ “ 

| 5th « “ 

1 

! 6th “ “ 

j 7th “ “ 

8th “ « 

9th “ “ 

10th “ “ 

11th « “ 


12th 


13th 


14 th 


Election 

districts. 


17th 

4th 


1st 

2d 

3d 

7 th 
8th 

6th 

5th 

9th 
10 th 


< 11 ill 

l 12th 


13 th 

f.aS's 'l 

I -3 « ~ 

I O ^ ~ — 
i §> |E \ 


,0 c£ 


r- 


r* & 
o 5 

5— w *-J 

« j: -*7 
_ - 


( Part of ) 
l 15th \ 


( 16th and 1 
< part of > 
( 13th ) 


Settlers from 1 

the North. j 

C 

<*- =J 

a 0 
© 9 J1 

3 S2 

<v 5 

xn 

10 

24 

40 

23 

34 

63 

280 

88 

67 

| 

j 132 

49 

37 

32 

12 

2 , 

26 

44 

47 

83 

155 

129 

295 

27 

29 

10 

27 

56 

37 

50 

28 

49 

50 

77 

— 

22 

55 

- 

r ii 1 

i Hi 
bjj ~ ~ 

11--* J 

1 

r . 1 

I 

i .£.,£3 

I 1 

l J 

- 

Majority 
from 1 he 
South. 

- 1 

I 

1 

Majority 
from the 
South. 


# 






































































































































11 


From this table, based upon the census, it is 
dearly established that there was a majority of 
tiie actual settlors from the North in the Territory 
in but three of the fourteen representative dis¬ 
tricts. These were the second, fourth, and 
eighth—electing in all but five members out of 
tiie twenty-six. 

But I cannot dwell upon these exhibits. No 
man can gainsay the facts they disclose. They 
are based upon the census, and the organization ! 
of the districts by Governor Reeder; and these j 
two exhibits show conclusively to my mind, and 
as I think to all candid minds, that if the vote in 
the Territory had been confined exclusively to ! 
the actual resident registered voters in February, 
the result of the election would not have been j 
different from what it was! The census shows 
that, there were then a majority of 652 residents 
in the Territory from the South, over those from 
the North; and it is well known that great num¬ 
bers of the emigrants from the North voted with 
the southern settlers against the Free-Soil party 
at the election. Four of the members elected to 
the Legislature, voted for by southern men, were 
from the North. Mr. Banks, a member of the 
House, went from Pennsylvania; Mr. Water- 
son, from Ohio; Mr. Lykin's, a member of the 
Council, was from Indiana, and Mr. Barbee from 
Illinois. These men, though emigrating from 
die North, were members of the Legislature, and 
belonged to what the gentleman styles the pro¬ 
slavery or “border ruffian” party in Kansas. 
The whole “ Free-Soil vote,” or “ free-State” 
vote, as the gentleman calls it, in the entire Ter¬ 
ritory on the 30th of March, amounted to less 
than 800, as appears from the exhibits of the com¬ 
mittee’s report, (pages 31 and 32.) This is more 
than 200 less than the number of emigrants from 
the North in the Territory, according to the 
census, and less than one third of the legally- 
registered voters in February. 

Now, as no witness swears that any man of 
that party was prevented from voting, the whole 
evidence taken together clearly indicates, if it 
does not establish, the fact conclusively, that the 
Free-Soil party in Kansas was largely in the 
minority at the March election, and that all this 
cry about an invasion, and the election having 
been carried by Missourians, is nothing but 
clamor. It is an after-thought. As to-the state¬ 
ment of old man Jordan, it is sufficient to say, in 
reply to it, that there was no Free-Soil ticket run 
at the election where he was, in the third district. 
There was no reason, therefore, for any attempt 
to keep him from voting. 

It is very possible, Mr. Speaker — it is even 
probable, and 1 do not mean to say but what it 
is altogether true, that a great many illegal votes 
were cast at the election. It is certainly admitted, 
also, that great numbers of the citizens of Mis¬ 
souri went into the Territory on the day of the 
election, but there is no proof that any great 
numbers of them voted. They went, according 
to the testimony, to see that illegal voting should 
not be allowed by parties sent out by the eastern 
emigrant aid societies, barely for the purpose of 
voting and returning. The main point, however, 


I am now presenting is, that if every vote be 
rejected and cast out of the count but those of the 
actual resident registered voters in the Territory in 
February, the result, upon all reasonable and 
rational grounds of calculation and conclusion, 
would have been the same as it was. These views 
are founded upon fixed and ascertained facts— 
upon a registry of the legal voters, with the places 
from which they went, and not upon loose state¬ 
ments of one-sided witnesses about the polls be¬ 
ing crowded with strangers, and great multitudes 
of people coming upon the ground in wagons, 
&c. Why, Mr. Johnson (one of the judges of 
election, too,at a precinct in the seventh district) 
swears, on page 261, that “ a great many of the 
people in that district, whom he considered legal 
voters, came to the polls in their wagons, I haj/e 
no doubt, as I came there myself in my wagon. 
It is the habit of the people in the Territory to go to 
gatherings in their wagons.” And in this imme¬ 
diate connection, too, he states, “ and as a judge 
of election, 1 am willing now to swear that we 
allowed no man to vote that we did not consider 
j had a right to vote.” 

The tale told by all the witnesses examined by 
Governor Reeder amounts to nearly the same 
thing. They all had their “ story pat.” A great 
crowd was assembled about the polls. Some had 
guns, pistols, and knives. Well, sir, when and 
where was there ever an election held at which 
the people did not crowd about the polls ? And 
is it not strange, that this army of invasion, with 
flags, banners, and music—guns, pistols, and 
knives, did so little mischief? Not a man was 
hurt by them in the whole Territory ! Not a 
homicide committed! Not even an assault and 
battery about voting in the whole Territory ! For 
from all the testimony taken it appears that there 
were but three or four fights in all Kansas on the 
I day of election; and these fights -were, not about 
voting! Why, sir, in the municipal election in 
this city, the other day, at one precinct alone, 
there were half a dozen men knocked down— 
some were shot—one has since died of the wounds 
received in the affray; and one man, two or three 
days afterwards, was killed in the streets merely 
! for hurrahing for his candidate! But in the in¬ 
vasion and subjugation of Kansas on this memo- 
! rable election day, no man was killed—no man 
was even whipped for, or on account of, his 
voting! Strange invasion and subjugation was 
that! A subjugation without a life lost, a bone 
i broken, or a bruise given, and about which no 
complaint was raised until months afterwards ! 
And why, Mr. Speaker, was it got up afterwards? 
Why do we hear so much of it now? What is 
the real cause of all this clamor at this time, in 
this House and out of it, about the illegality of 
! the election of the Legislature in Kansas, and 
these pretended grievances of a pretended down* 
! trodden majority there, crying out for redress 
against a system of laws imposed upon them by 
the people of a neighboring State ? I understand 
it, sir, very well, and you, too, doubtless, under¬ 
stand it. We all understand it. There is a party 
in this country determined to “ride or ruin ”—not 
only in Kansas, but throughout the Republic. It 
is a party formed upon geographical lines against 










12 


the warning in the Farewell Address of the Father 
of his Country. 

I may be permitted, in this connection, to al¬ 
lude to this true and real cause of all these dif¬ 
ficulties; for, but for this cause, I venture to say, 
such a case as that now presented before this 
House would not have received one hour’s con¬ 
sideration. The true cause, then, lies in no real 
grievance in Kansas, but in the aims, objects, and 
purposes of this party. They are against al¬ 
lowing the people of the Territories of the United 
Suites to exercise the right of self-government, 
ae provided in the Kansas bill. The elections 
in Kansas did not go to suit that party. They 
coil themselves Republicans, and their republic¬ 
anism amounts to about this: they acknowl¬ 
edge the right of the people to govern them¬ 
selves, provided they do it according to their no¬ 
tions. They make loud professions, and utter 
“shrieks” for the “freedom of the Africans” 
amongst us, while they will not grant the free- 
darn of making their own laws to their own 
countrymen, of their own race and blood, un¬ 
less it is exercised in conformity to their will. 
These men were opposed originally to the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska act, because it granted the right 
to the free white men there to assign the negro 
to that status, in their political systems, which 
they, in their wisdom and patriotism, might 
determine to be best for both them and him. 
They wish to govern Kansas, not according 
to the wishes of the people there, but as they 
please. 

Sir, I profess to be a republican of the old school, 
of the school of Madison and Jefferson and 
Washington. It was upon the principles of that 
school 1 was in favor of the Kansas bill, and am 
still; and I am in favor of adhering to it and car¬ 
rying it out in good faith, both in letter and spirit. 
I justify no wrongs that may have arisen under 
it, if any have, coming from any quarter whatever; 
and I am compelled to believe, from all the testi¬ 
mony taken in this case, that whatever wrongs 
may have been committed by any portion of the 
people of Missouri, they were retaliatory in their 
character. The first wrong was committed by 
those whose sole object was to defeat the peace¬ 
ful and quiet operation of the principles of that 
bill. Whatever ills may have befallen these inter¬ 
meddlers, have been clearly of their own seeking; 
and we seldom see a man going out of his way 
to get into a difficulty who makes much by it. I 
am, however, sir, for applying all proper reme¬ 
dies for existing difficulties, and for quieting all 
disturbances which have arisen in Kansas, in any 

roper and legitimate way. This 1 have shown 

y my advocacy of the Senate’s bill, which still 
sleeps upon your table, and which you will not 
touch: that is a fair and a just mode of pacifica¬ 
tion. If pacification is what you want, that is 
one way in which it can be accomplished. It 
cannot be done by ignoring their laws, and voting 
their Delegate out of a seat on this floor. It can¬ 
not be done by making the President supreme 
dictator over them. It cannot be done by with¬ 
holding appropriations and stopping the wheels 
of the General Government, and throwing us all 
inta&narchy, unless the will of a majority of this 


House, upon the subject of African slavery, shall 
be the law in that Territory. It cannot be done by 
sixteen States of this Union setting themselves 
up to govern not only Kansas, but the other fif¬ 
teen separate and independent coequal States in 
this Confederacy. It can only be done by leaving 
this question, in some form or another, just where 
the Kansas bill put it. This is the only ultimate, 
eaceful solution of the whole matter, and it will 
! e so found in the end. 

The people of Kansas, I take it, are capable of 
governing themselves, just as wisely, peacefully, 
patriotically, and as safely, without dictation 
j from, or control by you, as they were in the 
States from which they migrated. They lost 
I none of their intelligence, virtue, patriotism, or 
sovereignty, I trust, by a change of residence. 
They can judge better of the character of their 
laws than you can. If they do not suit the wishes 
of a majority of the people there, they doubtless 
will be changed in due time and in a proper way. 
The day for a new election, if the Senate bill is 
not to pass, is near at hand. In October a new 
Legislature is to be elected. Why should the 
people there be encouraged to acts of revolution, 
or this House be induced to take steps leading to 
revolution here, when the constitutional and 
peaceful remedy of the ballot-box is so near at 
hand ? Why cannot all these questions be left to 
the people of Kansas to settle at their next elec¬ 
tion? If the Free-Soil party are in the majority, 
as you say it is, why shrink from that test? I 
question if any State in the Union has got a bet¬ 
ter election law—one more rigidly guarding the 
free exercise of the elective franchise—than the 
people of Kansas have, which is that very law 
you are now about to be called upon to declare 
invalid and void. Amongst other provisions, it 
contains the following, which I called the atten¬ 
tion of the House to once before on this floor: 

“ Sec. 24. If any person, by menaces, threats, and force, 
or by any other unlawful means, either directly or indi¬ 
rectly, attempt to influence any qualified voter in giving 
his vote, or to deter him from giving the same, or disturb or 
hinder him in the free exercise of his right of suffrage, at 
any election held under the laws of this Territory, the per¬ 
son so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged 
guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by fine not ex¬ 
ceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the 
county jail not exceeding one year. 

“ Sec. 25. Every person who shall, at the same election, 
vote more than once, either at the same or a different pla*e, 
shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, 
and be punished by fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or by 
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months. 

“ Sec. 26. Every person not being a qualified voter a*- 
I cording to the organic law and the laws of this Territory, 
who shall vote at any election within this Territory, know¬ 
ing that he is not entitled to vote, shall be adjudged guifcr 
of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine not exceeding fifty 
dollars. 

“ Sec. 27. Any person who designedly gives a printed or 
written ticket to any qualified voter of this Territory, con 
taining the written or printed names of persons for whma 
said voter does not design to vote, for the purpose of eaue- 












13 


ing such voter to poll his vote contrary to his own wishes, 
shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, 
and punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or 
by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three 
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 

“ Sec. 28. Any person who shall cause to be printed and 
circulated, or who shall circulate, any false and fraudulent 
tickets, which upon their face appear to be designed as a 
fraud upon voters, shall, upon conviction, be punished by 
fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment 
in the county jail not exceeding three months, or by both 
such fine and imprisonment. 

“ This act to take effect and be in force from and after its 
passage.”—Chap. 52, p. 281. 

Arc not these provisions ample to secure a full 
and fair expression of the popular will in the 
choice of those who shall make laws for them, ot¬ 
to change and alter any obnoxious ones that may 
now be in force ? What objection is there to it? 
The only one I have heard is, that another clause 
denies the right of suffrage to those who may be 
guilty of a violation of the fugitive slave law, and 
requires a voter, on being challenged, to purge 
himselfby what is called the “ test oath.” This is 
the provision to which the gentleman from Ver¬ 
mont [Mr. Meacham] alluded the other day, I 
suppose, when he applied to it the term “ scan¬ 
dalous.” But, sir, I do not see how that gentle¬ 
man and his friends generally can object strongly 
even to that feature, since their vote, two days 
ago, upon the bill introduced by the gentleman 
from Indiana, [Mr. Dunn.] That bill expressly 
affirms the fugitive slave law, notwithstanding 
all that has been said by them against it, and 
their denunciations of those by whose votes it 
was passed. In order to get a restoration of the 
Missouri restriction over Kansas, this side of the 
House voted for this very fugitive slave law; and 
nothing but a “pair” prevented the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Meacham] from voting for 
it himself. Here is a clause, for which all on this 
side of the House voted: 

“ And provided further, That any person lawfully held to 
service in any other State or Territory of the United States, 
and escaping into either the Territory ofKansas or Nebraska, 
may be reclaimed and removed to the person or place where 
such service is due, under any law of the United States 
which shall be in force upon the subject.” 

This is an indorsement in express terms of the 
fugitive slave law, as it now exists upon the 
statute-book, for which I say all on this side of 
the House voted a few days ago. 

Mr. LEITER. I did not vote for that pro¬ 
vision. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I beg the gentleman’s par¬ 
don; he did vote against it, I believe. 

Mr. BENNETT, of New York. The gentle¬ 
man must make another exception. I did not 
vote for the fugitive slave provision. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I believe the gentleman 
did not vote at all. I intended to speak only of 
those who did vote. The gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Leiter] is the only one on the Free-Soil 
side who voted against it. All the others who 


voted at all voted for it; and I allude to the fhct 
to show that, for the purpose of accomplishing a 
♦favorite object, those who have been so loud in 
their denunciations of this law have been willing 
to give it their sanction. Even the senior gentle¬ 
man from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings,] who some time 
ago arraigned his colleague, [Mr. Campbell,] the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
for bringing forward a bill containing items of 
appropriation to pay officers for the discharge of 
their duty in the execution of this law, has, by 
his vote, not only sanctioned its constitutionality, 
but the propriety of its enforcement. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman from 
Georgia allow me to ask him a question ? I urv 
derstand he is in favor of the fugitive slave law; 
but I ask him whether he voted for the fugitive 
slave law to which he alludes, the other day? 
Mr. STEPHENS. I did not. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Then the gentleman and I 
disagree. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, we disagree in many 
things, but not on that point in that bill, if the 
gentleman was really in favor of what he voted 
for. The gentleman voted for the bill, I suppose, 
notwithstanding it contained the fugitive slave 
clause, because it contained an arbitrary and ab¬ 
solute restriction upon the free will of the free whiU 
men in Kansas. It was upon that point we dis¬ 
agreed. The fugitive slave law is already in 
force in that Territory by the original Kansas 
bill, for which I voted. But how can that ger>- 
tleman and others, who gave the vote they did 
the other day, ever hereafter raise their voices 
against the constitutionality of this law, and in 
denunciation of those who voted for it in 1850? 
I recollect a member from Michigan, (Mr. Buel,) 
who was literally run down in his State for voting 
for it at that time. Pictures were got up, I was 
told, representing him with a slaveholder in 
pursuit of his ftigitives. He was beaten before 
the people in his election for giving that vote. 
Perhaps some one who aided in that defeat is 
present. If so, and if he was in his place and 
voted two days ago, he reaffirmed by his vote 
the very same law. Let this be made known bo 
his constituents. It is but due to the character 
and worth of a noble and true man, who fell a 
victim to the Moloch of party in the discharge 
of a public duty, and in the maintenance of his 
constitutional obligations. 

But, sir, the point I was on is this: How can 
gentlemen raise such objections to that feature in 
the Kansas election law, which denies the right of 
suffrage to those who are guilty of a violation of 
a statute of the United States, which they, by 
their votes, have affirmed shall subject them lo 
the pains and penalties of felony? Crimes of 
certain grades, in many of the States, deprive 
men of the right of voting. Why may not felony 
in Kansas be a disqualification as well as any¬ 
where else? Why not leave this matter to a 
majority of the honest people in the Territory bo 
settle for. themselves at the next election ? The 
reason, sir, is obvious. The party to which I 
have alluded are opposed to the principle of tike 
people in each State and community attending to 
their own internal affairs, and of allowing those 









14 


, .. 1 ', - - ■ . . -■ ■ —.- 

in other States and communities to do the same. 
All our American systems rest upon this princi¬ 
ple; yet they are opposed to it. Men in Massa¬ 
chusetts, New York, and Ohio, are not content! 
with looking after the well-being of their own j 
States, but they wish to set themselves up as 
supervisors, legislators, and rulers of the people 
in other places beyond their jurisdiction. And 
these are the men who are so constantly prating 
about the slave power—its aggressions, its inso¬ 
lence, and its dictation. When, sir—when did the 
slave power ever assume such insolence, put on 
such arrogance, use such dictation, or claim such 
prerogatives, as this class of men do in this 
instance? When did southern statesmen ever 
seek to impose their institutions upon any other 
State or Territory? I know it is said that tjiey 
have endeavored to extend slavery*by Congress. 

The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Cumback] 
the other day said the object of the Kansas bill 
was to make Kansas a slave State by act of Con¬ 
gress. No such thing, sir. The object of the 
Kansas bill was neither to make it a slave State 
nor a free State; but, after taking off the restric¬ 
tion of 1820,' to leave that matter without any 
interference, dictation, or control on the part of 
Congress to the people there to settle for them¬ 
selves, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States. The object is clearly set forth in 
the bill itself. Here are its words: 

“That the Constitution and all laws of the United States, 
which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same 
force and effect in the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere 
within the United States, except the eighth section of the 
‘Act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the I 
Union,’ approved March 6,1820, which, being inconsistent j 
with the principle of non intervention by Congress with 
sflavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the 
legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise meas¬ 
ures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the 
true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery 
into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but 
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu¬ 
late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
oady to the Constitution of the United States.” 

The difference between southern statesmen and 
northern Free-Soilers upon this subject is, that 
the former are willing, and ever have been, to j 
leave the question of the domestic institutions in ] 
the new States to the people to settle for them-! 
selves; while the latter are seeking to mold and 
fashion them according to their peculiar preju¬ 
dices. All that the South asked in the annexa¬ 
tion of Texas, and all the guarantee she got was, 
simply, that the people in certain States, hereafter 
to be formed out of Texas, might come into the 
Union either with or without slavery, as the peo¬ 
ple may determine for themselves. This is what 
Free-Soilers call an aggression of the slave power. 
We at the South consider it nothing but.the es¬ 
tablishment of the great principle of self-govern¬ 
ment which was the germ of the American Revo¬ 
lution. Free-Soilers hold the position towards 
the Territories and new States, which Lord North 
and his ministry in the British Parliament did, 


towards the colonies. He and they, in adhering 
to their policy of governing the colonies in all 
cases whatsoever, severed one empire. It may 
be that their imitators on this continent, by pur¬ 
suing a similar policy, may sever a far more glo¬ 
rious, prosperous, and happy Confederacy of 
States. Southern statesmen on this question oc¬ 
cupy the grounds of the old Whigs, the old Dem¬ 
ocrats, and the old Republicans, of the days of 
the Revolution. They say it is not only unjust, 
but anti-republican, for the Representatives on 
this floor from the various States of the Union, 
to attempt, arbitrarily, to impose laws and insti¬ 
tutions upon the people of the distant Territories, 
who have no representation by votes upon this 
floor. 

When I addressed this House some time ago, 
I called attention to some remarks made by Mr. 
John Quincy Adams, at Pittsburg, in November, 
1843, upon the subject of abolishing slavery in 
this District. These remarks are pertinent to the 
present question. His anti-slavery sentiments 
were quite as strong, perhaps, as those of any 
man now present; but he was opposed to the 
abolition of slavery in this District by Congress, 
because it was anti-republican. These are his 
words: 

“As to the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum¬ 
bia, I have said that I was opposed to it—not because I have 
any doubts of the power of Congress to abolish slavery in 
the District, for I have none. But I regard it as a violation 
of republican principles to enact laws at the petition of one 
people which are to operate upon another people against 
their consent.” 

Mr. Adams said it was a “ violation of republican 
principles to enact laws at the petition of one people 
which are to operate upon another people against 
their consent and for the same reason I say to 
you, who have assumed the title of Republicans, 
you violate every principle consecrated by the 
name you bear, by attempting to force institu¬ 
tions upon the people of Kansas against their 
consent. If a majority there see fit to assign the 
negro the same condition he occupies in the 
southern States, let them do it. If a majority of 
them shall prefer that he shall be an outcast 
amongst them, without the franchise of a free¬ 
man, or the protection of a master, as he is in 
many States of the Union—a vagabond, in a 
worse condition than that of Cain—for he had a 
mark on him that no man should hurt him—let 
them so determine. This is our position. 

Mr. STANTON. Does the gentleman hold 
that the Territorial Legislatures have power to 
exclude slavery? 

Mr. STEPHENS. I say that, if Congress has 
the power, so has the Territorial Legislature. The 
gentleman, 1 believe, holds that Congress has the 
power, I do not; and consequently I do not hold 
that the Territorial Legislatures can rightfully 
exclude slavery. I hold that the public domain 
being public property, purchased by the common 
blood and common treasure of all, should be left 
free and open for settlement and colonization 
equally by the citizens of all the States alike until 
they come to form their State constitution; but 1 















15 


repeat what I have said before, that if a majority 
of the people of the Territory, upon a fair expres¬ 
sion of the popular will in due form of law, shall 
decide against slavery, 1 am willing to abide by 
that determination. Now is the gentleman willing 
to do this? He is silent. By his votes he has 
said that he is unwilling to do it. That is the 
difference between us. 

Now, I say, again, that southern statesmen 
have never asked Congress to impose their insti¬ 
tutions upon an unwilling people. They have 
always believed in the ability and capacity of the 
men of their pwn race to govern themselves 
wisely, and for the best interests of themselves 
and their posterity, in each State and community 
for itself. The party to which I have alluded is 
arrayed against this principle. It is nothing but 
a ehoot, a sprout, a rattoon from the buried roots 
of t 1 e old Rufus-King, Hartford-convention 
party, which was always against this principle 
of self-government—of popular sovereignty— 
upon which all our American institutions rest. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. The gentleman from Geor¬ 
gia says that the South has always held to the 
capability of man for self-government; I would 
inquire whether it is a part of that self-govern¬ 
ment to flog their slaves? 

Mr. STEPHENS. It is a part of all kinds of 
government to punish offenders, whether white 
or black, bond or free. This may be done, ac¬ 
cording to the grade of the offense, either by flog¬ 
ging, imprisoning, branding, or hanging, as the 
law-making power may determine. The princi¬ 
ple of self-government which I advocate applies 
to men of our own race—free white men. 1 do 
not believe that the African race is capable of self- 
government, ei ther in the South or North. They 
never have been from the earliest days of history. 
In the gentleman’s own State they are not ac¬ 
knowledged to be within the principle. They 
are not acknowledged as equals either socially or 
politically. They take no part in the govern¬ 
ment under which they live. Whether they are 
flogged there I do not know, but great numbers 
o£ them are in jails, according to the census. The 
constitutions of most of what are called “free 
States ” in this Union show that they are noteven 
there considered capable of self-government. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Does the gentleman believe 
that the Africans who captured American Chris¬ 
tians, and made slaves of them, were capable of 
self-government ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. They were of a different 
race. I allude to the black, woolly-headed ne¬ 
groes. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GIDDINGS. The gentleman knows there 
are descendants of Jefferson and others here 
whose blood is tinctured with that of the Afri¬ 
can. Now, how much African blood must they 
have to be incapable of self-government? 

Mr. STEPHENS. One eighth part or degree j 
by our law. [Renewed laughter.] Has the gen- j 
tleman any further question ? Now, sir, notwith- j 
standing we at the South hold this incapacity in ! 
the negro of self-government, and notwithstand- j 
ing we deny him social and political equality, I j 
maintain that he is better off there, better pro- j 
vided for, better taken care of, and is more pros- 11 


perous and happy in his condition amongst us, 
than he is in any other part of the world—not 
excepting the gentleman’sown State. This the 
last census showed. The negroes with us, sir, 
even under the restraints of power over them, 
enjoy not only more comforts of life, but more 
rational liberty than they do anywhere else. 
They enjoy quite as much as they are fit for. 
All rational liberty is founded on restraints. 
“Bonds make free.” To constitutional and 
legal bonds we are all indebted for whatever lib¬ 
erty any of us enjoy. Liberty without bonds of 
some sort is nothing but licentiousness. And 
those bonds in which the negro is placed with us 
are only such as are necessary for the largest lib¬ 
erty he is capable of enjoying. Dependence and 
subordination is his natural and normal condi¬ 
tion; but socially, the position of this people is 
bettea*at the South than it is at the North, so far 
as my observation has extended. At the North 
they are excluded, and shunned as a leprous 
caste. At the South they look to their masters 
as guardians for protection, and they are treated 
with that respect and kindness due to their 
condition. But, sir, I must return from this 
digression. 

I have shown you the utter groundlessness of 
the assumed facts upon which the first resolution 
before us, proposing to vote the sitting Delegate 
out of his seat, is founded. I have also shown 
that the real and true reason of this unheard-of 
proceeding is not the one assigned, but that it is 
to be found in the purposes of that great sectional, 
abolition party, which is now seeking to govern 
as they please, not only the common Territo¬ 
ries, but the whole fifteen southern States of this 
Union. 

It is now for me briefly—for I have but a few 
moments of time left—to allude to the second 
resolution before us, which is even more mon¬ 
strous than the first. This proposes to assign a 
seat on this floor to Andrew H. Reeder, as a Del¬ 
egate from Kansas, not by virtue of his being 
entitled to it, but because it is supposed there is 
a majority here willing to do it. It is not pre¬ 
tended that he has the shadow of a claim of legal 
right to it. The majority of the Committee of 
Elections who have reported this resolution, do 
not venture to say that he is entitled to a seat. 
The resolution is an anomaly of its character. It 
simply says: 

Resolved, That Andrew H. Iteeder be admitted to a seat 
on this floor as a Delegate from the Territory of Kansas. 

He presents no certificate of election, or creden¬ 
tials from any quarter, except the report of the 
Kansas committee. This committee, on page 
67, say, “ That Andrew H. Reeder received a 
greater number of votes of resident citizens than 
John W. Whitfield for Delegate.” This is his 
whole case, and this statement by them is uns^s- 
tained by proof. The majority of the Committee 
of Elections have adopted it; and I now call 
upon the chairman, [Mr. Washburn, of Maine,] 
who will conclude this argument, to show the 
evidence upon which it is founded. I make the 
demand of him in the presence of the House and 
the country. He cannot respond to it; for this 
















16 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 028 001 


733 4 


is one of the bold assertions of this investigating 
committee, which there is no testimony to war¬ 
rant. Reeder was not a candidate at the election 
when Whitfield was elected. He was not a can¬ 
didate at any election held in pursuance of any 
legal authority. He was voted for, it is said, on 
the day that delegates were elected to a conven¬ 
tion under the Topeka movement; and on page 
58 of the report, there appears what is styled an 
abstract of the number of votes received by him; 
but this is nothing but a statement by the com¬ 
mittee. There is not a particle of evidence to 
show where it came from, or what credit is 
to be given to it; and I call upon the gentle¬ 
man from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] to show the 
facts upon which this statement—this abstract 
is based. There is not a particle of evidence in 
this whole volume to sustain it. The only evi¬ 
dence showing the number of votes that Reeder 
got is to be found on pages 670, 682, and 683. 
On page 670 it appears that he received at the 
third and seventh precincts of the third district, 
24 votes. On page 682, it appears that he received 
at the house of Richard J. Farqua, in the sixth 
district, 12 votes; and on page 683, it appears that 
he received at Columbia precinct, in the same 


[district, 20 votes—making 56 in all, and all told ! 
I If there is any evidence, or any proof that he 
received another vote in the Territory, 1 call upon 
the gentleman to point it out. If' there be any 
such, it has escaped me; while it appears from a 
copy of the official records, to be found on pages 
45 and 46, that Whitfield received upwards of 
2,700 votes. How, then, could the Kansas com¬ 
mittee say that Reeder received a larger number 
of the votes of resident citizens than Whitfield 
did ? And yet this is one of the incontrovertible 
facts which the Committee of Elections say have 
been established by the proof. 

Mr. Speaker, I can say no more upon the sub¬ 
ject. If Whitfield is to be ousted because he was 
not elected in pursuance of any valid law, upon 
what principle can Reeder be put in by this 
House, when in his case there was neither law 
nor votes. There is but one principle upon which 
it can be done, and that is, “ Sic volo , sic jubeo ”— 
I so will it, and I so order it. It is the prin¬ 
ciple of all tyrannies, and the beginning of all 
usurpations; but I will not permit myself to 
believe that this House will commit such an 
outrage. I will not believe it until I see th 
perpetration of the deed. 


0 
















